United States v. Darian Cromwell

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Darian Cromwell

523 F. App'x 443

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJune 13, 2013

Docket12-10209

StatusUnpublished

This text of 523 F. App'x 443 (United States v. Darian Cromwell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Darian Cromwell, 523 F. App'x 443 (9th Cir. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

Darían Cromwell appeals the sentence imposed after his convictions of one count of felon in possession of a firearm and two counts of felon in possession of ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Cromwell argues that the district court erred in setting the base offense level under the Sentencing Guidelines. In particular, Cromwell argues that the district court erred in finding that “the offense involved a ... semiautomatic firearm that is capable of accepting a large capacity magazine,” U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(l), because a magazine was not “in close proximity to the firearm,” id. cmt. n. 2.

The firearm in this case was stored in a tote “mere feet” from a blue gym bag containing a large capacity magazine. An officer testified without contradiction that one could reach the magazine by bending down and then access the gun from the same spot by simply “standing up and looking to the left and reaching up.” Under these facts, it is plain that the two items were “in close proximity.” See United States v. Heldberg, 907 F.2d 91, 94 (9th Cir.1990) (holding in another context that an item is “in close proximity” if it is “a few feet away and readily accessible ... in the event [the defendant] desired to use it to commit an act of violence”).

AFFIRMED.

***

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM ***

Darían Cromwell appeals the sentence imposed after his convictions of one count of felon in possession of a firearm and two counts of felon in possession of ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Cromwell argues that the district court erred in setting the base offense level under the Sentencing Guidelines. In particular, Cromwell argues that the district court erred in finding that “the offense involved a ... semiautomatic firearm that is capable of accepting a large capacity magazine,” U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(l), because a magazine was not “in close proximity to the firearm,” id. cmt. n. 2.

The firearm in this case was stored in a tote “mere feet” from a blue gym bag containing a large capacity magazine. An officer testified without contradiction that one could reach the magazine by bending down and then access the gun from the same spot by simply “standing up and looking to the left and reaching up.” Under these facts, it is plain that the two items were “in close proximity.” See United States v. Heldberg, 907 F.2d 91, 94 (9th Cir.1990) (holding in another context that an item is “in close proximity” if it is “a few feet away and readily accessible ... in the event [the defendant] desired to use it to commit an act of violence”).

AFFIRMED.

***

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

523 F. App'x 443, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-darian-cromwell-ca9-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack